The City Council took up a number of very important items last night and I wanted to give you a full report of what happened.
1) The City Council appointed Charles Fred Glidden to a 3 yr appointment to represent the City Council on the Board of Directors of the Holyoke Geriatric Authority. Fred has a wealth of knowledge about the Authority and previously served on that board for 9 years. Fred will join our 2 other appointments of Angela Boyle and Ted Taupier to make sure that the Geriatric Authority provides quality care and remains financially solvent. I also tip my hat to the other very qualified candidates who ran because it was not an easy decision. In the end, here is how your Councilors voted:
Charles F Glidden received the 9 votes of Councilors Brunelle, Devine, Jourdain, Keane, Lopez, McGiverin, Tallman, Welch & Whelihan
Raymond Murphy received the 5 votes of Councilors Leahy, Lisi, McGee, Pluta and Purington
Kimberly Ferris received 1 vote from Councilor O'Neill
2) The City Council approved the Jones Ferry River Access Center and I was proud to have voted for this excellent project. For the cost of $400,000 we will be receiving a state of the art facility valued at $1.3 million. This facility and location will be an asset to our children and grandchildren for many years to come. The vote was 13-2 with Councilors Brunelle and Whelihan voting no.
3) The City Council voted down the $122,384 in payraises to numerous department heads in city hall and other non-elected, non-union positions totalling 51 positions in all. The raises were completely arbitrary and without any backup whatsoever in terms of justifying enhancements ranging from 3, 4, 6, 8, 13.5%. Unfortunately, some of the positions did deserve an enhancement but the mayor elected to package them all in one unit in the expectation we would have to approve them all or nothing. As I stated clearly at the meeting, I am supportive of Cost of Living Adjustments for our employees usually in the range of 2-2.5-3% like we do for our union positions but no way can the city afford massive payraises without serious justification. Many of these positions are paid at the very top of the scale of what they should be paid already for the work performed. The Council was not provided with performance appraisal justifications either. Historically, the City Council has a reputation for just voting for everything and anything when it comes to payraises; hopefully, yesterday's vote signals a new course of financial accountablity on behalf of the taxpayers of the city who expect us to treat our employees fairly while at the same time making sure we live on our budget.
The Council voted as follows (10 votes are required for adoption):
In favor of the $122,384 for 1 yr package: Devine, Keane, Leahy, McGee, O'Neill, Pluta, Purington, Tallman and Welch
Opposing the package: Jourdain, Lisi, Lopez, McGiverin, Whelihan
Councilor Brunelle did not vote.
4) The remaining items from the agenda which is linked from my site were either approved with little discussion or referred to committee.
5) In terms of new orders, there was one filed (Item 36) filed by Councilor O'Neill which will be closely watched: That the Law dept prepare a legal opinion for the City Council discussing the legal procedures available should the City elect to terminate its contract with Aquarion. If possible, the opinion should include an estimate of costs and liabilities to be incurred by the city as a result of this process. Without objection Councilors Devine, Lisi, Pluta and Jourdain joined as co-sponsors.
6) My order to post the city budget on the city website was adopted and hopefully you will see where all of your money is being spent very shortly.
Don't forget you can always see the proceeding live on ComCast Channel 15 on the first and third Tuesday of each month starting at 7:30PM.
If you have any questions about the meeting or would like to discuss an issue of importance to you, please do not hesitate to call me at 538-5519.
It is my pleasure to serve you.
Re-Elect Holyoke's Fiscal Watchdog!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Valley Advocate: Trash Talk!
Thursday, February 21, 2008 Trash Talk Does a proposed transfer station unfairly target one Holyoke neighborhood? By Maureen Turner
Standing at the empty lot at 686 Main St. in Holyoke, it's easy enough to imagine a trash transfer station at the site. The land, ringed by a chain-link fence, sits in the city's designated waste management district. On one side of the two-plus acre parcel is Holyoke's wastewater treatment facility; on another side, just across Berkshire Street, is the city's yard-waste drop-off site, where a pile of discarded Christmas trees awaits recycling. The immediate neighborhood is largely industrial in nature, dominated by oil companies, paper companies, printers.
But travel just beyond that ring of buildings and the nature of the neighborhood changes again, to include modest single-family homes, rental properties and the pride of the neighborhood, Springdale Park. Morgan Elementary School is half a mile from the site; Holyoke High and Dean Technical High are both within a mile and a half. It's a fragile neighborhood, one that struggles with high poverty rates, public health problems, language barriers (many residents speak Spanish as their primary language), ailing schools. The last thing it needs, many in the area say, is to add trash into the mix.
But that's what could happen, if a proposal to build a 22,575-square-foot trash transfer station at 686 Main St. succeeds. The project, proposed by United Waste Management, Inc., based in Bolton, Mass., would be a drop-off site for solid municipal waste, collected from neighboring communities, and for construction and demolition, or C&D, waste. The waste would be consolidated and then transported to landfills.
Angry residents are organizing against the project, citing worries about pollution, increased traffic and noise. Proponents of the project counter that the station would bring jobs and tax revenue to a city that could use more of both, and say fears about the project are off the mark.
And while neighbors have the backing of city councilors and a dedicated coalition of activists, they face an uphill battle: Right now, they have little legal standing in their fight to stop the project.
City Councilor Diosdado Lopez has represented Ward 2, which includes the proposed transfer station site, for 17 years. Like other opponents, he says the project snuck up on the neighborhood, with little public notification or opportunity for input.
"This whole project has been like a secret," Lopez says. "Even though I represent the area where the project is being proposed, I never got any information until I found out through the Planning Board. That usually never happens."
But once he got wind of the idea, Lopez lost no time trying to kill it. He and others opposed to the project see numerous potential problems: Pollution, generated by as many as 225 trucks a day, carrying up to 750 tons of trash to the transfer station, in a city where asthma rates are already higher than average. Noise created by the trucks and by train cars, running on tracks adjacent to the site, that would carry some of the trash from the transfer station. The wear and tear on the streets caused by the increased traffic, which they also worry could cause jams that would make it hard for emergency vehicles to get through. Declining property values for homeowners who suddenly find themselves neighbors to a trash drop-off site. Concerns about the materials at the site, including the potential for toxins like asbestos and mercury in the construction and demolition waste.
"It doesn't make sense to put something like this project in the neighborhood," Lopez says. "We don't deserve it, due to all the problems we have in the area."
Last fall, Lopez struck what looked to be a debilitating, if not fatal, blow against the transfer station project: In October, the City Council unanimously approved his proposal for a 12-month moratorium on any new waste processing or trash transfer facilities in the city.
Ginetta Candelario, a Smith College sociology professor who lives in Holyoke's Highlands neighborhood, was one of the residents who came to the council meeting that night, waving signs and wearing medical masks to symbolize their concerns about the health effects of the transfer station. "We left feeling very satisfied that we had managed to at least put the brakes on this project," Candelario recalls.
The victory was short-lived, however; within a week, the city's Law Department declared that the moratorium was not legally valid. In an Oct. 22 letter to Mayor Michael Sullivan, who had requested her opinion on the legality of the moratorium, City Solicitor Karen Betournay wrote that "the order as adopted was not in proper legal form." The moratorium, she wrote, amounted to an amendment of the city's zoning ordinance, but the Council had failed to follow the legal process, including public notice and a hearing, necessary to amend an ordinance. In addition, Betournay cited a Mass. General Law that prohibits municipalities from banning a waste disposal facility on a site already zoned for that use.
The city solicitor did note that the Council could vote to require a transfer station to obtain a special permit imposing conditions on the project. "[I]t is my opinion that a Court would not uphold the [moratorium] order, should United Waste challenge it in Court," Betournay wrote. "Rather than allowing this project to be forced upon the City through the Court system, the City should work with United Waste Management to address residents' concerns during the permitting process."
In light of Betournay's opinion, Sullivan did not sign the moratorium order, effectively vetoing it. Opponents, however, have not given up the fight: Lopez still hopes to legally impose a moratorium; barring that, he hopes to pass an order that would require United Waste Management—or any company looking to open a transfer station or recycling facility in the city—to apply for a special permit. Right now, UWM doesn't need a special permit, since the land is already zoned for waste management.
"If indeed it's going to go in, let it go in with some conditions," Lopez says. That might mean limiting the hours of operation (according to UWM documents about the project, the station would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except for six major holidays a year) or reducing the maximum amount of trash allowed at the site. The permit could also require that the center, which is now pitched as a regional facility, only accept trash from within the city, Lopez suggests. "Holyoke shouldn't be a dump for any other cities or towns," he says.
Holyoke would not, in fact, serve as a dump for other communities; the project proposed for 686 Main St. would be a transfer station, where waste would be dropped off, consolidated, and then sent out to landfills. But symbolically, opponents—who've formed a group called Holyoke Organized to Protect the Environment, or HOPE—see the project as dumping on an already beleaguered community. "We have not had a real conversation about any of this, and consequently it feels like they're trying to push something through," says Candelario.
A moratorium would create an opportunity for that conversation, she says. "What we basically want is a pause. We want to really assess the costs and benefits of a transfer station, and is this the best location. We don't think it is," she says.
"You're talking about hundreds of tons [of trash] coming in every day," Candelario says. "That's a huge amount of waste coming into the city and, sadly, coming into the ward that has the highest poverty rate, the highest asthma, high diabetes. You're talking about the most vulnerable population in Holyoke ... made even more vulnerable." William Aponte is an environmental organizer with Nuestras Raices ("Our Roots"), a community organization focused on environmental issues and economic development in Holyoke. He's also co-director of an "environmental justice" grant Nuestras Raices received, with Mount Holyoke College, from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to assess the risks posed by toxins in the city and develop community partnerships to address the problem.
"We have many environmental problems here—diesel trucks and buses driving through the community, brownfields and abandoned buildings, the river is contaminated, the outdoor air pollution—you name it," says Aponte. Adding a transfer station, Aponte says, runs counter to the work his organization is trying to do. "Why can't we focus on the problems we have here and try to find solutions to that, and bring healthy businesses to the community?" he asks. "Why bring a transfer station to a downtown community?"
Candelario agrees. She points to the city's ambitious Canal Walk project, which aims to revitalize the canal district with a pedestrian mall, an "arts corridor," retail and museums. "And three blocks south of there, you're going to have hundreds of dump trucks bringing trash in and out of the city?" she asks. "This is literally the gateway to Main Street." (The transfer station site sits three-quarters of a mile from the southernmost point of the Canal Walk project.) "Holyoke has enormous potential," Candelario says. "It's a beautiful city. It's got character, architecture and history. And this just seems like a giant step backwards."
Scott Lemay, CEO of United Waste Management, says there are a lot of misconceptions about the transfer station project. That's not unusual; waste management projects tend to trigger people's worst fears, says Lemay, who's been in the industry for more than 20 years.
"People think there's pollution, and you're dumping on them," he says. But, he points out, a transfer station is not a dump or a landfill; it's a place where waste material is temporarily stored while loads brought in by smaller vehicles are consolidated to be carried out by larger trucks or by train. The material is not burned or processed, and it doesn't remain there long enough to decompose, he says. "The reality is, you're dumping in a closed building," Lemay says. "Everything that goes into the building goes out of the building."
Lemay describes the project as having numerous benefits for the city of Holyoke. "For starters, it will create jobs, good-paying jobs," he says. Lemay estimates the facility would need about eight workers on site, such as heavy equipment and scale operators, in addition to office staff such as accounting personnel and the truck drivers and rail workers who would transport the material. "We definitely will give preference to Holyoke people," he adds.
Another benefit—one that's caught the attention of some in City Hall—is the tax revenue the project would bring to Holyoke. "You have an industrial piece of property there right now that is clearly distressed," Lemay said. Developing the property would bring in property taxes as well as excise taxes on the equipment; while the specifics of the building are still being sorted out, Lemay describes the station as a "multi-million dollar facility" that would yield "hundreds of thousands" in taxes. In addition, he says, United Waste Management is willing to negotiate a "royalty" payment to the city, which is not mandated by law but is standard in the industry for larger-scale projects.
"We're committed to making sure there are benefits to the city," he says. Lemay contends that many of the community concerns are not as bad as opponents suggest. The facility would generate an average of 150 vehicles trips a day, with a maximum capped at 225. The site's proximity to I-391, he says, means the trucks would not be on city streets for long. And plans to move material from the facility by rail would mean fewer trucks on the road and would make it easier to move the trash to larger regional landfills, to relieve stress on already overburdened landfills in the area.
Lemay says it's unclear yet how many communities would be served by the transfer station, although he says it would serve "the immediate communities. ... People would not long-haul waste from far-away communities." Lemay says he understands residents' fears about the transfer station, especially given the history of the site, which has, at times, hosted an incinerator and a composting site. A transfer station, he says, would not create the same odor and pollution issues. "People need to realize that this isn't some toxic waste dump," he says. "We're talking about their trash, the surrounding communities' trash. It's no different than what you look at in your waste barrel or in a dumpster out in the city."
The concerns of residents who oppose the transfer station extend beyond environmental and traffic issues to include politics and public process. Some suggest that the project is being pushed through because it's in a heavily poor, mostly Latino neighborhood. "I believe it's like a racial project," says Nuestras Raices' Aponte, who notes that many affected residents speak Spanish as their primary language, which makes it harder for them to be engaged in the public process or to weed through technical documents that are available in English only.
And while the City Council unanimously passed the moratorium last fall, project opponents say that doesn't necessarily mean they've got city government on their side. "The mayor is basically selling this idea that he's neutral, which I don't believe," says Diosdado Lopez, who contends Sullivan is quietly backing the project.
Not so, counters Sullivan. "I really haven't taken any position one way or another," the mayor says. "I try and be fair about the advantages to the city and the disadvantages." But, Sullivan adds, he also has to make sure the city doesn't overstep its legal rights. He didn't sign the moratorium, he says, because the Law Department made it clear it was not legally sound. He says he also has to keep in mind that, as things now stand, UWM has a legal right to build the transfer station, since the land is already zoned for that use.
"We also are very cognizant and very aware of people's land rights, and the process. This is privately held land. Taking a position one way or another would be imprudent, because that's how litigation starts," Sullivan says. "If United Waste thinks that it's unfair to them one way or another, or the residents do, it may lay the ground for a suit down the road."
While Sullivan says he's not taking a position on the project, he appears to consider its building a likely possibility and is already considering ways to mitigate potential problems. "Certainly, there are concerns," the mayor says, pointing, for instance, to increased traffic in the area. But, he says, the project might be an opportunity to get UWM to help improve traffic flow in the neighborhood, especially at I-391. "The city engineer and I don't feel [the traffic concerns are] insurmountable, and we feel there probably would be a benefit for the greater good if we could make improvements in that area," says Sullivan. Plus, he adds, a local transfer station would mean fewer trucks heading through the city to the West Springfield facility where Holyoke now sends its trash—provided the city contracts with UWM to handle its trash.
After discussions with Lemay and with the city's DPW head, Sullivan feels many neighborhood fears about the project are unfounded. "From an environmental aspect, there's a lot of misinformation out there," he says. UWM would have control systems to handle dust and odor, he says, and the trash sorting would all take place within the building. "That's far better than what we had there before, which was an odorous nightmare," says Sullivan, referring to the former composting facility.
Sullivan objects to suggestions that Ward 2 is being treated unfairly, and that the project would never happen in a more affluent neighborhood. The fact is, he says, the project is targeting this community because it's already zoned for waste management. "Every neighborhood has to put up with some aspect of quality of life," says Sullivan. People in the Ingleside area are bothered by mall traffic; residents of West Holyoke complain about snowmobilers; in the Highlands, they're unhappy about the coal-burning plant and the Mount Tom quarry. Given a choice, "they'd probably take the transfer station," Sullivan says. "People don't like these things," he says of the transfer station. "They need them, but they don't like them."
One other thing Holyoke needs, the mayor adds, is revenue. While he doesn't yet know how much the transfer station would generate in taxes, he says, "I think it's safe to say it would be more than [the property] does now." The project could generate other income for the city, too, such as tipping fees.
"That money is going to go to our schools, our police, our fire. Like every community, we're starving to find new sources of revenue," Sullivan says. He even raises the specter of something that has caused much turmoil in Holyoke's biggest neighbor to the south: "I'm not saying it will, but this project may be the difference between Holyoke continuing to have free trash pick-up and having a fee like Springfield does."
Freshman City Councilor Rebecca Lisi wasn't in office when the moratorium was passed last fall. But she supports Lopez's new moratorium effort, to allow the city and residents time to evaluate the project and to make sure there's a fair process in place for evaluating such proposals in the future. If the moratorium fails, Lisi supports requiring transfer stations to get a special permit from the City Council. "In the end, the special permit is a fallback. As a last resort, the special permitting process is there to make sure it's not interfering with the lives of the residents," she says. "It's reasonable to impose conditions about things like hours, noise control and traffic control."
Transfer stations can have positive benefits, such as encouraging recycling, says Lisi. But, she asks, "Is this the place to put it? ... No one puts a transfer station on Main Street USA."
She adds: "I definitely sympathize with [Lemay] on a few points—there's a lot of misunderstanding about what a transfer station is. But it's his responsibility to communicate with residents and make clear his proposal."
That, Lemay says, is what he was doing at a public hearing last month on the special permit and moratorium proposals. (That heavily attended hearing was continued to Feb 26, at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall.) At the hearing, Lemay spoke out against a special permit, which he says is redundant, given the numerous requirements already imposed at multiple levels: The state Department of Environmental Protection has an extensive review process for such projects, and UWM would also need the OK of several city bodies, including the Board of Health and the Building and Fire Departments. "There already is a very well-detailed, scrutinized process," Lemay says.
UWM, he adds, is willing to work with the city to address public concerns. "We want this project to create benefits for the community," Lemay says. "To the extent that an issue comes up that we feel needs to be compromised, we're open to discussion. ... "We intend to have a very, very open process. We're proud of the things that we do. We want the people to have the information," adds Lemay, whose company details its proposal on a website: www.uwmholyoke.com.
Lemay believes city residents are starting to feel more comfortable with the project. "We're starting to open people's eyes," he says. "I think people that weren't that receptive in the past are starting to talk about the issues more, as opposed to just being against it."
But not everyone is ready to get on board with the project—starting with Diosdado Lopez. In addition to the special permit and moratorium proposals, he's also looking into other ways the city might stop the project, such as refusing UWM an easement to the property. He's also working with HOPE to consider other recourses, including raising money for a legal fight. "I'm hoping we don't let this guy go in without a fight to the end, even if we have to go to court," Lopez says. The group is also considering splashier tactics, such as picketing outside Lemay's home in eastern Mass., the councilor adds.
"This is a big project for the neighborhood, and I haven't found any support in the neighborhood," Lopez says. "With this project, we're going back 20 years."
—mturner@valleyadvocate.com
Standing at the empty lot at 686 Main St. in Holyoke, it's easy enough to imagine a trash transfer station at the site. The land, ringed by a chain-link fence, sits in the city's designated waste management district. On one side of the two-plus acre parcel is Holyoke's wastewater treatment facility; on another side, just across Berkshire Street, is the city's yard-waste drop-off site, where a pile of discarded Christmas trees awaits recycling. The immediate neighborhood is largely industrial in nature, dominated by oil companies, paper companies, printers.
But travel just beyond that ring of buildings and the nature of the neighborhood changes again, to include modest single-family homes, rental properties and the pride of the neighborhood, Springdale Park. Morgan Elementary School is half a mile from the site; Holyoke High and Dean Technical High are both within a mile and a half. It's a fragile neighborhood, one that struggles with high poverty rates, public health problems, language barriers (many residents speak Spanish as their primary language), ailing schools. The last thing it needs, many in the area say, is to add trash into the mix.
But that's what could happen, if a proposal to build a 22,575-square-foot trash transfer station at 686 Main St. succeeds. The project, proposed by United Waste Management, Inc., based in Bolton, Mass., would be a drop-off site for solid municipal waste, collected from neighboring communities, and for construction and demolition, or C&D, waste. The waste would be consolidated and then transported to landfills.
Angry residents are organizing against the project, citing worries about pollution, increased traffic and noise. Proponents of the project counter that the station would bring jobs and tax revenue to a city that could use more of both, and say fears about the project are off the mark.
And while neighbors have the backing of city councilors and a dedicated coalition of activists, they face an uphill battle: Right now, they have little legal standing in their fight to stop the project.
City Councilor Diosdado Lopez has represented Ward 2, which includes the proposed transfer station site, for 17 years. Like other opponents, he says the project snuck up on the neighborhood, with little public notification or opportunity for input.
"This whole project has been like a secret," Lopez says. "Even though I represent the area where the project is being proposed, I never got any information until I found out through the Planning Board. That usually never happens."
But once he got wind of the idea, Lopez lost no time trying to kill it. He and others opposed to the project see numerous potential problems: Pollution, generated by as many as 225 trucks a day, carrying up to 750 tons of trash to the transfer station, in a city where asthma rates are already higher than average. Noise created by the trucks and by train cars, running on tracks adjacent to the site, that would carry some of the trash from the transfer station. The wear and tear on the streets caused by the increased traffic, which they also worry could cause jams that would make it hard for emergency vehicles to get through. Declining property values for homeowners who suddenly find themselves neighbors to a trash drop-off site. Concerns about the materials at the site, including the potential for toxins like asbestos and mercury in the construction and demolition waste.
"It doesn't make sense to put something like this project in the neighborhood," Lopez says. "We don't deserve it, due to all the problems we have in the area."
Last fall, Lopez struck what looked to be a debilitating, if not fatal, blow against the transfer station project: In October, the City Council unanimously approved his proposal for a 12-month moratorium on any new waste processing or trash transfer facilities in the city.
Ginetta Candelario, a Smith College sociology professor who lives in Holyoke's Highlands neighborhood, was one of the residents who came to the council meeting that night, waving signs and wearing medical masks to symbolize their concerns about the health effects of the transfer station. "We left feeling very satisfied that we had managed to at least put the brakes on this project," Candelario recalls.
The victory was short-lived, however; within a week, the city's Law Department declared that the moratorium was not legally valid. In an Oct. 22 letter to Mayor Michael Sullivan, who had requested her opinion on the legality of the moratorium, City Solicitor Karen Betournay wrote that "the order as adopted was not in proper legal form." The moratorium, she wrote, amounted to an amendment of the city's zoning ordinance, but the Council had failed to follow the legal process, including public notice and a hearing, necessary to amend an ordinance. In addition, Betournay cited a Mass. General Law that prohibits municipalities from banning a waste disposal facility on a site already zoned for that use.
The city solicitor did note that the Council could vote to require a transfer station to obtain a special permit imposing conditions on the project. "[I]t is my opinion that a Court would not uphold the [moratorium] order, should United Waste challenge it in Court," Betournay wrote. "Rather than allowing this project to be forced upon the City through the Court system, the City should work with United Waste Management to address residents' concerns during the permitting process."
In light of Betournay's opinion, Sullivan did not sign the moratorium order, effectively vetoing it. Opponents, however, have not given up the fight: Lopez still hopes to legally impose a moratorium; barring that, he hopes to pass an order that would require United Waste Management—or any company looking to open a transfer station or recycling facility in the city—to apply for a special permit. Right now, UWM doesn't need a special permit, since the land is already zoned for waste management.
"If indeed it's going to go in, let it go in with some conditions," Lopez says. That might mean limiting the hours of operation (according to UWM documents about the project, the station would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except for six major holidays a year) or reducing the maximum amount of trash allowed at the site. The permit could also require that the center, which is now pitched as a regional facility, only accept trash from within the city, Lopez suggests. "Holyoke shouldn't be a dump for any other cities or towns," he says.
Holyoke would not, in fact, serve as a dump for other communities; the project proposed for 686 Main St. would be a transfer station, where waste would be dropped off, consolidated, and then sent out to landfills. But symbolically, opponents—who've formed a group called Holyoke Organized to Protect the Environment, or HOPE—see the project as dumping on an already beleaguered community. "We have not had a real conversation about any of this, and consequently it feels like they're trying to push something through," says Candelario.
A moratorium would create an opportunity for that conversation, she says. "What we basically want is a pause. We want to really assess the costs and benefits of a transfer station, and is this the best location. We don't think it is," she says.
"You're talking about hundreds of tons [of trash] coming in every day," Candelario says. "That's a huge amount of waste coming into the city and, sadly, coming into the ward that has the highest poverty rate, the highest asthma, high diabetes. You're talking about the most vulnerable population in Holyoke ... made even more vulnerable." William Aponte is an environmental organizer with Nuestras Raices ("Our Roots"), a community organization focused on environmental issues and economic development in Holyoke. He's also co-director of an "environmental justice" grant Nuestras Raices received, with Mount Holyoke College, from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to assess the risks posed by toxins in the city and develop community partnerships to address the problem.
"We have many environmental problems here—diesel trucks and buses driving through the community, brownfields and abandoned buildings, the river is contaminated, the outdoor air pollution—you name it," says Aponte. Adding a transfer station, Aponte says, runs counter to the work his organization is trying to do. "Why can't we focus on the problems we have here and try to find solutions to that, and bring healthy businesses to the community?" he asks. "Why bring a transfer station to a downtown community?"
Candelario agrees. She points to the city's ambitious Canal Walk project, which aims to revitalize the canal district with a pedestrian mall, an "arts corridor," retail and museums. "And three blocks south of there, you're going to have hundreds of dump trucks bringing trash in and out of the city?" she asks. "This is literally the gateway to Main Street." (The transfer station site sits three-quarters of a mile from the southernmost point of the Canal Walk project.) "Holyoke has enormous potential," Candelario says. "It's a beautiful city. It's got character, architecture and history. And this just seems like a giant step backwards."
Scott Lemay, CEO of United Waste Management, says there are a lot of misconceptions about the transfer station project. That's not unusual; waste management projects tend to trigger people's worst fears, says Lemay, who's been in the industry for more than 20 years.
"People think there's pollution, and you're dumping on them," he says. But, he points out, a transfer station is not a dump or a landfill; it's a place where waste material is temporarily stored while loads brought in by smaller vehicles are consolidated to be carried out by larger trucks or by train. The material is not burned or processed, and it doesn't remain there long enough to decompose, he says. "The reality is, you're dumping in a closed building," Lemay says. "Everything that goes into the building goes out of the building."
Lemay describes the project as having numerous benefits for the city of Holyoke. "For starters, it will create jobs, good-paying jobs," he says. Lemay estimates the facility would need about eight workers on site, such as heavy equipment and scale operators, in addition to office staff such as accounting personnel and the truck drivers and rail workers who would transport the material. "We definitely will give preference to Holyoke people," he adds.
Another benefit—one that's caught the attention of some in City Hall—is the tax revenue the project would bring to Holyoke. "You have an industrial piece of property there right now that is clearly distressed," Lemay said. Developing the property would bring in property taxes as well as excise taxes on the equipment; while the specifics of the building are still being sorted out, Lemay describes the station as a "multi-million dollar facility" that would yield "hundreds of thousands" in taxes. In addition, he says, United Waste Management is willing to negotiate a "royalty" payment to the city, which is not mandated by law but is standard in the industry for larger-scale projects.
"We're committed to making sure there are benefits to the city," he says. Lemay contends that many of the community concerns are not as bad as opponents suggest. The facility would generate an average of 150 vehicles trips a day, with a maximum capped at 225. The site's proximity to I-391, he says, means the trucks would not be on city streets for long. And plans to move material from the facility by rail would mean fewer trucks on the road and would make it easier to move the trash to larger regional landfills, to relieve stress on already overburdened landfills in the area.
Lemay says it's unclear yet how many communities would be served by the transfer station, although he says it would serve "the immediate communities. ... People would not long-haul waste from far-away communities." Lemay says he understands residents' fears about the transfer station, especially given the history of the site, which has, at times, hosted an incinerator and a composting site. A transfer station, he says, would not create the same odor and pollution issues. "People need to realize that this isn't some toxic waste dump," he says. "We're talking about their trash, the surrounding communities' trash. It's no different than what you look at in your waste barrel or in a dumpster out in the city."
The concerns of residents who oppose the transfer station extend beyond environmental and traffic issues to include politics and public process. Some suggest that the project is being pushed through because it's in a heavily poor, mostly Latino neighborhood. "I believe it's like a racial project," says Nuestras Raices' Aponte, who notes that many affected residents speak Spanish as their primary language, which makes it harder for them to be engaged in the public process or to weed through technical documents that are available in English only.
And while the City Council unanimously passed the moratorium last fall, project opponents say that doesn't necessarily mean they've got city government on their side. "The mayor is basically selling this idea that he's neutral, which I don't believe," says Diosdado Lopez, who contends Sullivan is quietly backing the project.
Not so, counters Sullivan. "I really haven't taken any position one way or another," the mayor says. "I try and be fair about the advantages to the city and the disadvantages." But, Sullivan adds, he also has to make sure the city doesn't overstep its legal rights. He didn't sign the moratorium, he says, because the Law Department made it clear it was not legally sound. He says he also has to keep in mind that, as things now stand, UWM has a legal right to build the transfer station, since the land is already zoned for that use.
"We also are very cognizant and very aware of people's land rights, and the process. This is privately held land. Taking a position one way or another would be imprudent, because that's how litigation starts," Sullivan says. "If United Waste thinks that it's unfair to them one way or another, or the residents do, it may lay the ground for a suit down the road."
While Sullivan says he's not taking a position on the project, he appears to consider its building a likely possibility and is already considering ways to mitigate potential problems. "Certainly, there are concerns," the mayor says, pointing, for instance, to increased traffic in the area. But, he says, the project might be an opportunity to get UWM to help improve traffic flow in the neighborhood, especially at I-391. "The city engineer and I don't feel [the traffic concerns are] insurmountable, and we feel there probably would be a benefit for the greater good if we could make improvements in that area," says Sullivan. Plus, he adds, a local transfer station would mean fewer trucks heading through the city to the West Springfield facility where Holyoke now sends its trash—provided the city contracts with UWM to handle its trash.
After discussions with Lemay and with the city's DPW head, Sullivan feels many neighborhood fears about the project are unfounded. "From an environmental aspect, there's a lot of misinformation out there," he says. UWM would have control systems to handle dust and odor, he says, and the trash sorting would all take place within the building. "That's far better than what we had there before, which was an odorous nightmare," says Sullivan, referring to the former composting facility.
Sullivan objects to suggestions that Ward 2 is being treated unfairly, and that the project would never happen in a more affluent neighborhood. The fact is, he says, the project is targeting this community because it's already zoned for waste management. "Every neighborhood has to put up with some aspect of quality of life," says Sullivan. People in the Ingleside area are bothered by mall traffic; residents of West Holyoke complain about snowmobilers; in the Highlands, they're unhappy about the coal-burning plant and the Mount Tom quarry. Given a choice, "they'd probably take the transfer station," Sullivan says. "People don't like these things," he says of the transfer station. "They need them, but they don't like them."
One other thing Holyoke needs, the mayor adds, is revenue. While he doesn't yet know how much the transfer station would generate in taxes, he says, "I think it's safe to say it would be more than [the property] does now." The project could generate other income for the city, too, such as tipping fees.
"That money is going to go to our schools, our police, our fire. Like every community, we're starving to find new sources of revenue," Sullivan says. He even raises the specter of something that has caused much turmoil in Holyoke's biggest neighbor to the south: "I'm not saying it will, but this project may be the difference between Holyoke continuing to have free trash pick-up and having a fee like Springfield does."
Freshman City Councilor Rebecca Lisi wasn't in office when the moratorium was passed last fall. But she supports Lopez's new moratorium effort, to allow the city and residents time to evaluate the project and to make sure there's a fair process in place for evaluating such proposals in the future. If the moratorium fails, Lisi supports requiring transfer stations to get a special permit from the City Council. "In the end, the special permit is a fallback. As a last resort, the special permitting process is there to make sure it's not interfering with the lives of the residents," she says. "It's reasonable to impose conditions about things like hours, noise control and traffic control."
Transfer stations can have positive benefits, such as encouraging recycling, says Lisi. But, she asks, "Is this the place to put it? ... No one puts a transfer station on Main Street USA."
She adds: "I definitely sympathize with [Lemay] on a few points—there's a lot of misunderstanding about what a transfer station is. But it's his responsibility to communicate with residents and make clear his proposal."
That, Lemay says, is what he was doing at a public hearing last month on the special permit and moratorium proposals. (That heavily attended hearing was continued to Feb 26, at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall.) At the hearing, Lemay spoke out against a special permit, which he says is redundant, given the numerous requirements already imposed at multiple levels: The state Department of Environmental Protection has an extensive review process for such projects, and UWM would also need the OK of several city bodies, including the Board of Health and the Building and Fire Departments. "There already is a very well-detailed, scrutinized process," Lemay says.
UWM, he adds, is willing to work with the city to address public concerns. "We want this project to create benefits for the community," Lemay says. "To the extent that an issue comes up that we feel needs to be compromised, we're open to discussion. ... "We intend to have a very, very open process. We're proud of the things that we do. We want the people to have the information," adds Lemay, whose company details its proposal on a website: www.uwmholyoke.com.
Lemay believes city residents are starting to feel more comfortable with the project. "We're starting to open people's eyes," he says. "I think people that weren't that receptive in the past are starting to talk about the issues more, as opposed to just being against it."
But not everyone is ready to get on board with the project—starting with Diosdado Lopez. In addition to the special permit and moratorium proposals, he's also looking into other ways the city might stop the project, such as refusing UWM an easement to the property. He's also working with HOPE to consider other recourses, including raising money for a legal fight. "I'm hoping we don't let this guy go in without a fight to the end, even if we have to go to court," Lopez says. The group is also considering splashier tactics, such as picketing outside Lemay's home in eastern Mass., the councilor adds.
"This is a big project for the neighborhood, and I haven't found any support in the neighborhood," Lopez says. "With this project, we're going back 20 years."
—mturner@valleyadvocate.com
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Councilor Jourdain files orders for February 19, 2008 Meeting
1) That Rule 26 be amended to add an item labeled “The President’s Report” to the agenda after item 5 “communications and reports from city officers.” That a new rule be created stating that: The City Council President, when representing the City Council or acting is his or her capacity as President, shall make a written or oral report of any meeting he or she attends to the Full Council at the next available meeting of the City Council.
2) That the DPW Superintendent and Purchasing Director appear before the Finance Committee to discuss new energy and green technologies generally for both buildings and vehicles. [co-filed with Purington and Lisi]
3) That the DPW repair the numerous dangerous potholes on Maple Street.
4) That the H G&E Computer Department put a digital version of the city budget on the city website so people can view budget online.
2) That the DPW Superintendent and Purchasing Director appear before the Finance Committee to discuss new energy and green technologies generally for both buildings and vehicles. [co-filed with Purington and Lisi]
3) That the DPW repair the numerous dangerous potholes on Maple Street.
4) That the H G&E Computer Department put a digital version of the city budget on the city website so people can view budget online.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Jones Ferry Survey Results!
48% of Blog Voters stated that YES, the City Council should approve the Jones Ferry River Access Center even if it costs us $400,000 in city funds.
26% said Yes, as long as the feds and state pickup the tab.
26% said No, we got other priorities.
Thank you to everyone for voting! I really appreciate your input!
26% said Yes, as long as the feds and state pickup the tab.
26% said No, we got other priorities.
Thank you to everyone for voting! I really appreciate your input!
State House & Senate now televised Online!
My friend and a good friend to Holyoke, State Senator Mike Knapik has a new website that you should check out at: www.mikeknapik.com.
He has announced that the Massachusetts legislature is broadcasting live on the internet with live video streaming. The website to watch them is www.masslegislature.tv/
I am glad that they are now regularly televising their proceedings so the public can see what is going on. Those are 2 chambers we all need to keep an eye on.
Thanks Mike for your hard work!
He has announced that the Massachusetts legislature is broadcasting live on the internet with live video streaming. The website to watch them is www.masslegislature.tv/
I am glad that they are now regularly televising their proceedings so the public can see what is going on. Those are 2 chambers we all need to keep an eye on.
Thanks Mike for your hard work!
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Finance Committee Report of 2-13-08
We had a good Finance Committee meeting on 2/13/08. Here is a report of what happened:
1) Grant for Wistariahust in the form of a $500 gift from Denis Walsh
Cmte voted to accept 5-0
2) Grant for the Board of Health for $1000 for Emergency Medical Corps assistants from local colleges. Cmte voted 5-0 to accept
3) Request to approve 3 new second-hand and junk dealer licenses for young man starting a new second-hand store at 166 High Street. Cmte voted 5-0 to approve.
4) Request from Planning Dept to spend $26,000 to do an environmental cleanup of the former Adams Pakkwood site on Appleton Street. [This represents the 25% match to the $96,000 provided by EPA for a total reclamation cost of $120,000]. Cmte voted 5-0 to approve.
5) Request from Mayor to create a new full-time City Historian position under Historical Commission by converting a part-time position at Wistariahurst by increasing pay from $26,000 per year to $38,000 per year. Committee tabled the matter for more information.
6) Request from Mayor to increase salary of Building Commissioner Paul Healy by approximately $6,000 per year. [It has been 2 years since he had an increase] Committee approved 5-0.
7) Request to give 51 non-union, non-elected positions pay increases ranging from 3-13.5% and would cost $122,384 for the 1st year alone. [I voted no because many deserved it, but many others did not. It was put to us as a package although it could have and should have been seperated out] Cmte voted 3-2 to approve the package of increases. McGee, Leahy and O'Neill voted Yes. Jourdain and Whelihan voted No.
8) Request from Parks & Recreation Dept for the City Council to accept a $500,000 grant with conditions to construct a new Jones Ferry River Access Center. Following this vote, the City Council will be requested to bond for $1.3 million to do the project. $500,000 of that amount will be reimbursed by this grant. $400,000 will be reimbursed through use of Community Development Block Grant Funds and the city will have to pay the remaining $400,000. After a nice discussion with Holyoke Rows and Parks and Rec the Committee voted 5-0 to approve the grant.
1) Grant for Wistariahust in the form of a $500 gift from Denis Walsh
Cmte voted to accept 5-0
2) Grant for the Board of Health for $1000 for Emergency Medical Corps assistants from local colleges. Cmte voted 5-0 to accept
3) Request to approve 3 new second-hand and junk dealer licenses for young man starting a new second-hand store at 166 High Street. Cmte voted 5-0 to approve.
4) Request from Planning Dept to spend $26,000 to do an environmental cleanup of the former Adams Pakkwood site on Appleton Street. [This represents the 25% match to the $96,000 provided by EPA for a total reclamation cost of $120,000]. Cmte voted 5-0 to approve.
5) Request from Mayor to create a new full-time City Historian position under Historical Commission by converting a part-time position at Wistariahurst by increasing pay from $26,000 per year to $38,000 per year. Committee tabled the matter for more information.
6) Request from Mayor to increase salary of Building Commissioner Paul Healy by approximately $6,000 per year. [It has been 2 years since he had an increase] Committee approved 5-0.
7) Request to give 51 non-union, non-elected positions pay increases ranging from 3-13.5% and would cost $122,384 for the 1st year alone. [I voted no because many deserved it, but many others did not. It was put to us as a package although it could have and should have been seperated out] Cmte voted 3-2 to approve the package of increases. McGee, Leahy and O'Neill voted Yes. Jourdain and Whelihan voted No.
8) Request from Parks & Recreation Dept for the City Council to accept a $500,000 grant with conditions to construct a new Jones Ferry River Access Center. Following this vote, the City Council will be requested to bond for $1.3 million to do the project. $500,000 of that amount will be reimbursed by this grant. $400,000 will be reimbursed through use of Community Development Block Grant Funds and the city will have to pay the remaining $400,000. After a nice discussion with Holyoke Rows and Parks and Rec the Committee voted 5-0 to approve the grant.
Holyoke Panel Backs $128,000 in raises
Holyoke panel backs $128,000 in raises
Posted by The Republican Newsroom February 14, 2008 18:10PM
By KEN ROSSkross@repub.com
HOLYOKE - Requests for raises totaling $128,384 for non-contractual, non-elected employees and the city's building commissioner received the support last night of the City Council's Finance Subcommittee. But a request for a $5,500 increase to transform a part-time position at Wistariahurst Museum into a full-time city historian was tabled due to questions raised by some subcommittee members. "I'm all in favor of history," City Councilor Kevin A. Jourdain said. "But ... we have to stay focused on core city services. We just continue to expand and expand." The subcommittee's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council, which must ultimately approve the salary increases. The council meets on Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 536 Dwight St.
The city historian and building commissioner raises were discussed and voted on individually. The subcommittee then voted on $122,384 worth of raises as a whole for this fiscal year, which began July 1. Funding for the raises would come from "free cash," a term used by the state for unused appropriations from a previous fiscal year. Wistariahurst Museum director Melissa D. Boisselle fielded numerous questions about the proposed city historian post. The proposed $5,500 increase would be for the remainder of this fiscal year and ultimately boost the salary for the position from $26,000 to $38,000 per year.
The city historian would work with all city departments to organize the city's vast collection of historic artifacts. The city historian would also conduct research for the city, digitize the city's history collection and make it available on line as well as work with city schools and others to promote and educate the public about Holyoke's history. "The increase in hours will really be a benefit for the city," Boisselle said. "We feel it's a real opportunity." Others agreed. "I think the issue tonight is affordability and I think it's justified," City Council President Joseph M. McGiverin said Wednesday. "I think one of our most important roles is preserving our history," City Councilor James M. Leahy said.
As for the proposed $6,000 raise for the building commissioner, several councilors spoke enthusiastically in favor of raising the salary for the post from $50,751 to $56,751. "He works really hard and he does a good job," Jourdain said, referring to building commissioner Paul Healy. "This guy is going above and beyond," Leahy said. "I think it's well deserved."
As for the $122,384 in raises, they would be for city employees who are not members of a union and serve without contracts. If approved, most of these employees would receive a flat $2,250 raise. But some city employees would receive more. The health director would get a $6,960 raise, boosting salary for the position from $51,684 to $58,644. Mayor Michael J. Sullivan has also proposed raising the salary for the Director of Planning and Development by $5,520 from $66,980 to $72,500. The city would pay $4,195 of the proposed increase, the remaining $1,325 coming from the Holyoke Economic Development and Industrial Corporation.
Posted by The Republican Newsroom February 14, 2008 18:10PM
By KEN ROSSkross@repub.com
HOLYOKE - Requests for raises totaling $128,384 for non-contractual, non-elected employees and the city's building commissioner received the support last night of the City Council's Finance Subcommittee. But a request for a $5,500 increase to transform a part-time position at Wistariahurst Museum into a full-time city historian was tabled due to questions raised by some subcommittee members. "I'm all in favor of history," City Councilor Kevin A. Jourdain said. "But ... we have to stay focused on core city services. We just continue to expand and expand." The subcommittee's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council, which must ultimately approve the salary increases. The council meets on Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 536 Dwight St.
The city historian and building commissioner raises were discussed and voted on individually. The subcommittee then voted on $122,384 worth of raises as a whole for this fiscal year, which began July 1. Funding for the raises would come from "free cash," a term used by the state for unused appropriations from a previous fiscal year. Wistariahurst Museum director Melissa D. Boisselle fielded numerous questions about the proposed city historian post. The proposed $5,500 increase would be for the remainder of this fiscal year and ultimately boost the salary for the position from $26,000 to $38,000 per year.
The city historian would work with all city departments to organize the city's vast collection of historic artifacts. The city historian would also conduct research for the city, digitize the city's history collection and make it available on line as well as work with city schools and others to promote and educate the public about Holyoke's history. "The increase in hours will really be a benefit for the city," Boisselle said. "We feel it's a real opportunity." Others agreed. "I think the issue tonight is affordability and I think it's justified," City Council President Joseph M. McGiverin said Wednesday. "I think one of our most important roles is preserving our history," City Councilor James M. Leahy said.
As for the proposed $6,000 raise for the building commissioner, several councilors spoke enthusiastically in favor of raising the salary for the post from $50,751 to $56,751. "He works really hard and he does a good job," Jourdain said, referring to building commissioner Paul Healy. "This guy is going above and beyond," Leahy said. "I think it's well deserved."
As for the $122,384 in raises, they would be for city employees who are not members of a union and serve without contracts. If approved, most of these employees would receive a flat $2,250 raise. But some city employees would receive more. The health director would get a $6,960 raise, boosting salary for the position from $51,684 to $58,644. Mayor Michael J. Sullivan has also proposed raising the salary for the Director of Planning and Development by $5,520 from $66,980 to $72,500. The city would pay $4,195 of the proposed increase, the remaining $1,325 coming from the Holyoke Economic Development and Industrial Corporation.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Holyoke City Data Link Added
I just added a new link from the city-data website on Holyoke. It has lots of very interesting graphics and statistics about our city. Feel free to check it out.
I also found this great picture of city hall on their site.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Finance Committee to Meet on February 13!
The Finance Committee of City Council will be meeting on February 13 at 6:30PM in City Council Chambers. We will be discussing:
1) Grant Proposals from Wistariahurst & Board of Health
2) Jones Ferry River Access Center Proposal from the Holyoke Park & Rec department for the proposed construction of a new facility at that location. Here is a link to their proposal:
http://www.holyokerows.org/links/Jones%20Ferry%20River%20Access%20Center%20Improvements.pdf.
3) License application for a second hand license at 166 High Street
4) Financial Transfer for Pay Raises for the Non-Union employees and the planning department.
1) Grant Proposals from Wistariahurst & Board of Health
2) Jones Ferry River Access Center Proposal from the Holyoke Park & Rec department for the proposed construction of a new facility at that location. Here is a link to their proposal:
http://www.holyokerows.org/links/Jones%20Ferry%20River%20Access%20Center%20Improvements.pdf.
3) License application for a second hand license at 166 High Street
4) Financial Transfer for Pay Raises for the Non-Union employees and the planning department.
Presidential Primary Results for Holyoke
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 63%
Barack Obama 35%
Other 2%
Republicans
Mitt Romney 53%
John McCain 36%
Mike Huckabee 6%
Ron Paul 3%
Other 2%
Thank you to the 7490 Holyoke voters who went to the polls!
Hillary Clinton 63%
Barack Obama 35%
Other 2%
Republicans
Mitt Romney 53%
John McCain 36%
Mike Huckabee 6%
Ron Paul 3%
Other 2%
Thank you to the 7490 Holyoke voters who went to the polls!
Boston Globe: Holyoke a warehouse for the poor
'A warehouse for the poor'
Holyoke absorbs state's homeless
By Anna Badkhen, Globe Staff February 9, 2008
HOLYOKE - Eleven families are crammed into the tattered Main Street Shelter for the homeless in Holyoke.
But none are from the city. They came from Lawrence, Springfield, Chicopee, and other spots where services for the poor were overwhelmed.
One of the poorest cities in the state, Holyoke has plenty of homeless shelters, affordable housing, and an extensive network for assisting the poor. As the slumping economy, widening unemployment, and high rents push some Massachusetts residents toward poverty and homelessness, state agencies are sending more poor families than ever to this city of decrepit duplexes and shuttered storefronts, swelling the ranks of the city's neediest residents.
"We are a warehouse for the poor, and it's not something that the city controls," said Mayor Michael J. Sullivan of Holyoke. "It's something the system is doing to the city. Because we take care of the poor, the state continues to try and put more burden on us."
The US Census Bureau reported last month that the proportion of school-age children living in poverty in Holyoke increased from 33 percent in 2000 to nearly 40 percent in 2005, from 2,828 to 3,233. The number of families with children who lived in Holyoke's shelters grew from 73 in 2005 to 128 at the end of 2007, according to the state Department of Transitional Assistance, which oversees aid to the homeless.
School officials say that 1 in 5 public school students is homeless, living in a shelter or foster care, doubled up with another family, or in transitional housing.
An industrial town whose fortunes ebbed as its paper and textile mills closed, Holyoke has been poor for decades. Now, the city's low cost of living and extensive network of services for the poor are attracting a stream of impoverished families from other places, city officials said. On top of that, state agencies often send people who have become homeless in other parts of the state.
Of the city's 176 beds for homeless families in emergency shelters, Sullivan said "no more than 10 have ever been occupied by people who became homeless in Holyoke."
Funding from private charities and state and federal governments covers many of the direct costs of caring for the poor in Holyoke, but the influx of poor has meant that the city's residents must compete for services with people from elsewhere, Sullivan said. In schools, teaching often takes a back seat to ensuring that the poorest students are clothed and fed. The city's public schools are among the worst-performing in the state.
"You don't want to blame the victims," Sullivan said. "People say to me you should have stronger policies to keep people out. But if we don't help them, who's going to?"
Holyoke's homeless shelters can accommodate four times the number of families per capita than homeless shelters in Boston. And when shelters are full in other places, the state Department of Transitional Assistance sends homeless families to shelters with open spots, often in Holyoke. Last year, 40 families from the Boston metropolitan area were referred to Holyoke, Sullivan said.
"Our goal is to place families as close to the local office as possible, based on the availability of units," said Alison Goodwin, a spokeswoman for the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, which oversees the agency. But if local shelters are full, state regulations require that homeless families be housed in the first unit available, Goodwin said.
Agencies operating emergency shelters in Holyoke received more than $4 million from the state in fiscal year 2008, Goodwin said.
Asked about the dearth of space in shelters in other parts of the state, Julia E. Kehoe, who heads the Department of Transitional Assistance, responded in a written statement she sent through Goodwin that the department "continues to work with Mayor Sullivan and other elected officials to develop comprehensive strategies addressing the issue of poverty in Western Massachusetts. People living in poverty should have equal access to opportunity, no matter where they live."
Kenneth Guerra, a former store manager; Amanda Otero, a former certified nurse assistant; and their 7-year-old son, Kenneth III, were sent to Holyoke from Chicopee after the parents lost their jobs and no longer could pay rent.
Marangela Owino - whose daughter, Gabriella, was born here three months ago - was sent here from Springfield.
Gladys Gonzalez and her 14-year-old son, Gabriel, came from Orlando, Fla.
"I'm 105 miles away from home," said Christina Carrillo of Lawrence, who ended up in the shelter with her daughter Olivia, 3, after losing her job as a medical secretary and failing to pay rent on her three-bedroom apartment.
"We get referrals all the way from Boston" when Boston shelters have no vacancies, said Leida Cartagena, who works at the Valley Opportunity Council Inc., a Holyoke nonprofit that operates the shelter.
At the Kelly Elementary School, where young Kenneth Guerra attends first grade, at least five other students live in shelters. At the Lawrence Elementary School several blocks away, that number is 105, up from 78 last September.
In both schools, 1 in 3 students has been living in Holyoke for a few months, referred here by state agencies, and will probably leave before the year is over, school principals estimated.
School staff at Kelly Elementary keep extra clothes to hand out to students, most of whom are staying in overcrowded duplexes with broken windows mended with plywood or in the apartment buildings that line the potholed roads around the school.
Every day some child comes to school without a coat, a hat, boots, gloves, or even long pants, said Jacqueline Glasheen, assistant principal, who stores a bag with donated winter boots in her office. "They come in flip-flops," she explained.
One blustery day last month, a child-sized parka was lying on Glasheen's chair. "I got a note from a teacher on my desk this morning," she said, " 'Alex in second grade needs a winter coat.' "
Almost all of the school's 452 students are so poor that they receive school lunch for free or at a discount. For many, school meals may be the only food they get all day, said Chad M. Mazza, the school principal.
The Main Street Shelter serves three meals a day and has a refrigerator for the 11 families to share.
But there is little that Kenneth Guerra III's parents can afford to put in the refrigerator. Still unemployed, they receive a combined monthly food stamp benefit of $209, most of which the shelter requires them to save so that one day they can rent an affordable apartment, probably becoming another poor family that settles down in Holyoke.
But the shelter staff locks the kitchen for the night. "When we get hungry we can't go downstairs to get anything," said Kenneth Guerra III, skinny and pale. He bit his lip, and fell silent, apparently thinking of his old life in Chicopee.
"He still asks me every day when he can go back," his mother said.
Anna Badkhen can be reached at abadkhen@globe.com.
© Copyright
2008 The New York Times Company
Holyoke absorbs state's homeless
By Anna Badkhen, Globe Staff February 9, 2008
HOLYOKE - Eleven families are crammed into the tattered Main Street Shelter for the homeless in Holyoke.
But none are from the city. They came from Lawrence, Springfield, Chicopee, and other spots where services for the poor were overwhelmed.
One of the poorest cities in the state, Holyoke has plenty of homeless shelters, affordable housing, and an extensive network for assisting the poor. As the slumping economy, widening unemployment, and high rents push some Massachusetts residents toward poverty and homelessness, state agencies are sending more poor families than ever to this city of decrepit duplexes and shuttered storefronts, swelling the ranks of the city's neediest residents.
"We are a warehouse for the poor, and it's not something that the city controls," said Mayor Michael J. Sullivan of Holyoke. "It's something the system is doing to the city. Because we take care of the poor, the state continues to try and put more burden on us."
The US Census Bureau reported last month that the proportion of school-age children living in poverty in Holyoke increased from 33 percent in 2000 to nearly 40 percent in 2005, from 2,828 to 3,233. The number of families with children who lived in Holyoke's shelters grew from 73 in 2005 to 128 at the end of 2007, according to the state Department of Transitional Assistance, which oversees aid to the homeless.
School officials say that 1 in 5 public school students is homeless, living in a shelter or foster care, doubled up with another family, or in transitional housing.
An industrial town whose fortunes ebbed as its paper and textile mills closed, Holyoke has been poor for decades. Now, the city's low cost of living and extensive network of services for the poor are attracting a stream of impoverished families from other places, city officials said. On top of that, state agencies often send people who have become homeless in other parts of the state.
Of the city's 176 beds for homeless families in emergency shelters, Sullivan said "no more than 10 have ever been occupied by people who became homeless in Holyoke."
Funding from private charities and state and federal governments covers many of the direct costs of caring for the poor in Holyoke, but the influx of poor has meant that the city's residents must compete for services with people from elsewhere, Sullivan said. In schools, teaching often takes a back seat to ensuring that the poorest students are clothed and fed. The city's public schools are among the worst-performing in the state.
"You don't want to blame the victims," Sullivan said. "People say to me you should have stronger policies to keep people out. But if we don't help them, who's going to?"
Holyoke's homeless shelters can accommodate four times the number of families per capita than homeless shelters in Boston. And when shelters are full in other places, the state Department of Transitional Assistance sends homeless families to shelters with open spots, often in Holyoke. Last year, 40 families from the Boston metropolitan area were referred to Holyoke, Sullivan said.
"Our goal is to place families as close to the local office as possible, based on the availability of units," said Alison Goodwin, a spokeswoman for the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, which oversees the agency. But if local shelters are full, state regulations require that homeless families be housed in the first unit available, Goodwin said.
Agencies operating emergency shelters in Holyoke received more than $4 million from the state in fiscal year 2008, Goodwin said.
Asked about the dearth of space in shelters in other parts of the state, Julia E. Kehoe, who heads the Department of Transitional Assistance, responded in a written statement she sent through Goodwin that the department "continues to work with Mayor Sullivan and other elected officials to develop comprehensive strategies addressing the issue of poverty in Western Massachusetts. People living in poverty should have equal access to opportunity, no matter where they live."
Kenneth Guerra, a former store manager; Amanda Otero, a former certified nurse assistant; and their 7-year-old son, Kenneth III, were sent to Holyoke from Chicopee after the parents lost their jobs and no longer could pay rent.
Marangela Owino - whose daughter, Gabriella, was born here three months ago - was sent here from Springfield.
Gladys Gonzalez and her 14-year-old son, Gabriel, came from Orlando, Fla.
"I'm 105 miles away from home," said Christina Carrillo of Lawrence, who ended up in the shelter with her daughter Olivia, 3, after losing her job as a medical secretary and failing to pay rent on her three-bedroom apartment.
"We get referrals all the way from Boston" when Boston shelters have no vacancies, said Leida Cartagena, who works at the Valley Opportunity Council Inc., a Holyoke nonprofit that operates the shelter.
At the Kelly Elementary School, where young Kenneth Guerra attends first grade, at least five other students live in shelters. At the Lawrence Elementary School several blocks away, that number is 105, up from 78 last September.
In both schools, 1 in 3 students has been living in Holyoke for a few months, referred here by state agencies, and will probably leave before the year is over, school principals estimated.
School staff at Kelly Elementary keep extra clothes to hand out to students, most of whom are staying in overcrowded duplexes with broken windows mended with plywood or in the apartment buildings that line the potholed roads around the school.
Every day some child comes to school without a coat, a hat, boots, gloves, or even long pants, said Jacqueline Glasheen, assistant principal, who stores a bag with donated winter boots in her office. "They come in flip-flops," she explained.
One blustery day last month, a child-sized parka was lying on Glasheen's chair. "I got a note from a teacher on my desk this morning," she said, " 'Alex in second grade needs a winter coat.' "
Almost all of the school's 452 students are so poor that they receive school lunch for free or at a discount. For many, school meals may be the only food they get all day, said Chad M. Mazza, the school principal.
The Main Street Shelter serves three meals a day and has a refrigerator for the 11 families to share.
But there is little that Kenneth Guerra III's parents can afford to put in the refrigerator. Still unemployed, they receive a combined monthly food stamp benefit of $209, most of which the shelter requires them to save so that one day they can rent an affordable apartment, probably becoming another poor family that settles down in Holyoke.
But the shelter staff locks the kitchen for the night. "When we get hungry we can't go downstairs to get anything," said Kenneth Guerra III, skinny and pale. He bit his lip, and fell silent, apparently thinking of his old life in Chicopee.
"He still asks me every day when he can go back," his mother said.
Anna Badkhen can be reached at abadkhen@globe.com.
© Copyright
2008 The New York Times Company
Friday, February 1, 2008
Councilor Jourdain appears on WGBY's The Watercooler!!
I had the pleasure of being asked to appear on WGBY's local television series, The Watercooler this week. The roundtable discussion was hosted by Susan Kaplan. I had the pleasure of sitting with her, Professor Ilan Stavans of Amherst College and fellow Holyoker Carmen Felix-Fournier of the Springfield schools. We discussed the question of language in society, bilingual education and the importance of our English language to all Americans.
It was a very thoughtful conversation. I think you will enjoy it.
The show will be airing on WGBY Public Television on:
Sunday, February 3 at 9:30am and 6:30pm
Tuesday, February 5 at 1:30pm and 7:30pm
It also is available ON DEMAND on COMCAST
If you are not able to watch it on your television, you can tune in on the WGBY website. Here are two links:
The 30 minute show itself:
Here is about 15 minutes of bonus footage:
Please feel free to email me your thoughts: Kevin.Jourdain@verizon.net
60% of Blog Voters opposed another sewer increase!
60% of poll takers opposed another increase in their sewer rates.
40% supported another increase.
Thank you to everyone who participated!
I wonder if the people who voted for an increase would be willing to send a little extra so those of us in the 60% would not have to have yet another increase?
Stay tuned on this one, friends. I am just waiting for the DPW to bring in another increase. Let's hope they take their time. You can count on me to vote against any proposed increase! The current rate of $4.66 / 1000 gallons (which increased rates 139%) is already years ahead of the rate promised under the Aquarion rate schedule when the contract was signed in July 2005!
40% supported another increase.
Thank you to everyone who participated!
I wonder if the people who voted for an increase would be willing to send a little extra so those of us in the 60% would not have to have yet another increase?
Stay tuned on this one, friends. I am just waiting for the DPW to bring in another increase. Let's hope they take their time. You can count on me to vote against any proposed increase! The current rate of $4.66 / 1000 gallons (which increased rates 139%) is already years ahead of the rate promised under the Aquarion rate schedule when the contract was signed in July 2005!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)